Atheism is not proper to man by nature, but develops at a later stage of life, on the ground of philosophic reflection; like scepticism, it is an intellectual and ethical abnormality, which only confirms the rule. By nature, in virtue of his nature, every man believes in God. And this is due in the last analysis to the fact that God, the creator of all nature, has not left himself without witness, but through all nature, both that of man himself and that of the outside world, speaks to him. Not evolution, but revelation alone accounts for this impressive and incontrovertible fact of the worship of God. In self-consciousness God makes known to us man, the world, and himself.
[...] one who does not find God in his or her immediate presence, in his or her heart and conscience, in the word and the Christian community, will not find him in the universe either, even though he equips himself with the best telescope that money can buy.
– Herman Bavinck, God and Creation, vol. 2 of Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 485.
In part 5 (see parts 1, 2, 3 and 4), Dr. Bahnsen continues his presentation to high school seniors on why Christians cannot be “neutral” when they go off to college.
The philosophies of the world rob the treasure of truth which is found only in Christ.
Colossians 2:8 (ESV) “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spiritsof the world, and not according to Christ.”
Main Point 3: Disagreements between believers and unbelievers are systemic, world view disagreements, not isolated disagreements on a few points.
The Christian philosophy of life is all encompassing; Christians are to bring every thought captive to Christ. Therefore, an antithesis always exists between believing and unbelieving philosophies. Furthermore, the world and its way of thinking finds the Christian philosophy to be not only wrong, but foolishness:
1 Corinthians 1:22-23 (ESV) For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles”
The disagreement is systemic, meaning that at all points Christianity’s philosophy is set against worldly wisdom: both world views have radically different starting points, methodologies, standards of evaluation, conclusions, etc.
Furthermore, Paul warns Timothy that not everything that comes to you as “truth” is true knowledge.
Everyone has a world view (basic philosophy of life), and this world view sets the limits upon that which one accepts as real, true, etc. In college you will encounter many of the secular world views.
Summary
In this lecture, Dr. Bahnsen argues three main points:
Unbelievers are not neutral.
Christians ought not be neutral.
Disagreements between believing and unbelieving philosophies are systemic, involving the antithesis between entire world views rather than mere disagreements on one or two points.
In part 4 (see parts 1, 2, and 3), Dr. Bahnsen continues discussing specific ways in which universities are not intellectually “neutral.” Part 3 introduced intellectual bullying and double standards, and we continue with the latter.
2. Double Standards and Hidden Agendas cont.
If you think that universities are objective, even-handed dispensers of neutral, agenda-free knowledge, you are “living in a fairy tale world.” Double standards exist both inside and outside of the classroom.
Inside the classroom, you need to be aware of the following considerations:
Professors select both the questions and answers that he or she considers important to discuss in class.
Professors select the books you are to read regarding those pre-selected questions and answers.
These selections are not neutral. Both in asking the questions and in seeking the answers unbelievers process life according to the tenets of their ultimate heart commitments.
On Christian terms unbelievers are more than merely “not neutral” in discussing man’s purpose in life, the purpose of the world, etc.; rather, unbelievers are hostile to God.
3. An antithesis exists between Christian and Non-Christian Thought; Unbelievers are hostile to God’s truth
The Scriptures are clear on teaching that unbelievers are not “open-minded, objective truth seekers.” Listen to Paul in Ephesians 4:17-19 (ESV):
Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.
Although in their thinking unbelievers are hostile to God and His truth, believers do not think this way. Rather, believers are to think according to God’s authority (vv. 20-24):
But that is not the way you learned Christ!— assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
Review of main point 1: Unbelievers are Not Neutral
Bahnsen’s two main points on neutrality are simple: (1) “They aren’t;” (2) “You shouldn’t be.” Unbelievers are not neutral because:
They use double standards,
They selectively consider questions of truth based upon the confines of their secular worldview, and
They have a worldview/mindset that is hostile to God.
In the last two sections, Bahnsen expounds his second main point, “You shouldn’t be.”
Main Point 2: Christians Should Not Be “Neutral”
Dr. Bahnsen turns to the following Scriptures to argue that Christianity’s epistemology demands that Christians think as Christians, and not as supposed “neutral” automatons. The following texts are by no means exhaustive, but they give a brief introduction to basic concepts in Christianity’s worldview.
In Jesus’ High Priestly prayer, He prays: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17 ESV).
To be “sanctified” means consecrated or set apart by the truth.
Because Christians are set apart or distinguished from the world by God, believers cannot be neutral. Rather, believers are to think according to God’s revealed truth which has “sanctified” them.
In Matthew 6:24 (ESV) Jesus says, “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.“
Jesus’ point is that it is impossible to have two ultimate authorities governing your life. (By definition an “ultimate authority” precludes the possibility of neutrality.)
Believers, then, are to think, feel, and live in obedience to the Sovereign Lord of all (which means believers cannot be neutral in their thoughts, affections, or actions).
Proverbs 1:7 (ESV): “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
On Christian terms, attempting to be neutral forbids one from knowledge because the ultimate foundation of truth is God Himself.
To know one’s self, one’s world, and ultimate reality correctly, the Christian’s starting point is the non-neutral fear of God.
Colossians 2:3 (ESV) “in whom [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
Christianity does not just claim “religious” truths, as if the religious sphere of life is separate from the non-religious (i.e. the so-called “secular/sacred” divide). Rather, “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” includes “all” truth.
Because, then, on Christian terms God is the owner of all truth, Christians cannot claim to be neutral in any area of life.
In part 3 (see parts 1 and 2), Dr. Bahnsen continues his lecture to high school students by giving specific ways in which university professors will seek to destroy Christian students’ faith with a supposed secular “neutrality.” What are some of these specific ways?
1. Intellectual Bullying
Antagonistic professors against Christianity will often intentionally use shaming and contemptuous techniques in order to put down their adversaries, such as deliberately talking over student’s heads, using obscure or highly technical vocabulary, showing off all the books and articles the professor has read on the topic instead of answering questions about the topic (i.e. “You are not smart enough to ask that questions or to hear my answer…”). How, then, can Christian students respond?
Our natural tendency will want to be clash intellectual horns in an attempt to meet strength with strength. But, bullying begets bullying. The only way out of this trap is genuine humility. When a professor intentionally speaks over your head, simply ask him or her to explain the new vocabulary, etc.
2. Double Standards and Hidden Agendas
Bahnsen quotes “Harassment Policies in the University,” a journal article by Alan Charles Kors (see Kors’ faculty bio; also see Kors’ The Shadow University as a related resource), to show that universities use such policies as pretexts to enforce political and ethical agendas upon students. There is no neutral moral basis for claiming protection from harassment; for, your protection as a student depends upon which social group you support and which you decry or critique.
To illustrate the non-neutrality of harassment policies Bahnsen refers to the “Piss Christ” controversy which showed clearly that at a university campus you can offend any group (especially Christians) in the name of “social criticism,” except those groups which the university deems as worthy of protection from such criticism. (i.e. You can put a cross in urine–a high offense to Catholics and Christians–and call it art, being protected in your speech by the harassment policy. But if you put a dolphin, homosexual rainbow, or any other ‘sacred cow’ symbol of secular humanism into urine, you would be guilty of harassment. Upon what basis is such a decision made? The university’s agenda, not some supposed “neutrality.”)
In part 2 (see part 1) of The Myth of Neutrality, Dr. Bahnsen begins to discuss the Christian view of neutrality according to the Holy Scriptures. He turns to the following passages:
Jude 3 — God expects believers to contend for the faith.
1 Peter 3:15 — At any point, be prepared to answer for your hope in Christ.
According to Bahnsen, the key to confronting challenges to the Christian faith is found in 2 Cor. 10:4-5.
Our weapons are not physical (i.e. guns, knives, violence, physical war, etc.).
Rather, our mighty spiritual weapon is to bring every thought (our own and others’) captive to the obedience of Christ.
Christians, then, display God’s mighty power when they think as Christians, and Christians cannot be “neutral” in their thinking; nor can Christians be intellectually lazy.
What about neutrality? Isn’t it wrong for Christians to assume or presuppose that Christianity is true? Bahnsen begins his answer by making two points on neutrality:
Those who demand neutrality are not neutral themselves.
Because Christianity is non-neutral by definition, Christians cannot be neutral (i.e. 2 Cor. 10:4-5).
Though a bit dated (i.e. notice the reference to Schwarzenegger’s 1991 movie, Terminator 2), Dr. Bahnsen’s lecture to a group of high school students, The Myth of Neutrality, introduces basic concepts in Christian apologetics that are sorely needed in current Christian discipleship.
The main concept introduced in these lectures is the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian thought and life. Part 1 of Bahnsen’s lecture introduces the problem by raising the question to the high school students: Are you ready to deal with professors and classmates who will scorn your beliefs, holding you and your faith in contempt?
“and in the assembly of the scorning ones [he] does not dwell.”
The seat, or assembly, (מוֹשַׁ֥ב) spoken of here is not a plastic or wooden or any other kind of chair. Rather, the language is regal; it refers to “a sitting or even an assembly of officials … [such as] … the wicked (Ps 1:1), or elders (Ps 107:32).”2 The seat in view here is a sort of United Nations Against God gathering, representing mankind’s scorning rebellion against the Almighty. Who then are the members of this “seat”?
Those who scorn (לֵ֜צִ֗ים) God3 are the members of this wicked assembly. The root for the verb “to scorn” is used only one other time in the Psalms (Psa 119:51). However, it appears frequently in the Proverbs. Accordingly, the scorner can be described as follows:
Fools scorn and mock at sin (Prov 14:9) and judgment (Prov 19:28). The scorner (Qal participial form) himself may be described as proud and haughty (Prov 21:24), incorrigible (Prov 9:7), resistant to all reproof (Prov 9:8; Prov 15:12), and hating any rebuke (Prov 13:1). Wisdom and knowledge easily elude him (Prov 14:6).
So despicable is the scorner that he may be labelled [sic] as odious to all men (Prov 24:9). Therefore he must be avoided (Psa 1:1) by all who would live godly lives. Further, he should be punished by hitting so that the easily pursuaded [sic] naive fool may benefit from the lesson (Prov 19:25; Prov 21:11). One good way to remove contention from a group is to eject the scorner, and then “strife and reproach will cease” (Prov 22:16). A prepared judgment awaits all such scorners (Prov 19:29), for their trademark of life has been “to delight” in their scorning (Prov 1:22). They shall be brought to nothing and consumed (Isa 29:20).4
The verb “to sit” (יָשָֽׁב) is used frequently in the Psalter.5 It is used here in the sense of “dwelling” or “remaining.” So, the meaning is that the happy/blessed man is he who does not dwell/remain in the official assembly of those who mock God.
While it may not be wise to make much of cognate relationships, it is interesting to see in this phrase (1:1c) that the verb (יָשָֽׁב) and the noun (מוֹשַׁ֥ב) come from the same root. Perhaps this is a technique in Hebrew poetry—I’ll have to do some digging. At any rate, the literary structure of this phrase is quite beautiful.
From the context-of-Psalms perspective, another striking relationship of יָשָֽׁב is worth mentioning. The next time this verb is used is in Psalm 2:4 in which God mocks His enemies, a powerful reversal/inversion of Psalm 1:1c.
Happy is he who does not align himself with those who mock God!
Two British intellectual giants, atheist Richard Dawkins and former atheist Alister McGrath, engage in a friendly interview. Dawkins probes McGrath’s Christian worldview, wanting to know how McGrath can claim that his faith in God is rational.
Atheism is not proper to man by nature, but develops at a later stage of life, on the ground of philosophic reflection; like scepticism, it is an intellectual and ethical abnormality, which only confirms the rule. By nature, in virtue of his nature, every man believes in God. And this is due in the last analysis to the fact that God, the creator of all nature, has not left himself without witness, but through all nature, both that of man himself and that of the outside world, speaks to him. Not evolution, but revelation alone accounts for this impressive and incontrovertible fact of the worship of God. In self-consciousness God makes known to us man, the world, and himself.
Though a bit dated (i.e. notice the reference to Schwarzenegger’s 1991 movie, Terminator 2), Dr. Bahnsen’s lecture to a group of high school students, The Myth of Neutrality, introduces basic concepts in Christian apologetics that are sorely needed in current Christian discipleship.
